Actually no; I had no connection with a loving God until I first proved (via the historical, logical and scientific evidences) that atheism has no foundation, but God, on the other hand had a great foundation. After that time, my Biblical studies and witnessing of a great many other things showed me the Gods love through his son Jesus Christ.

So, having gone through the evidences, and not relying on what MAN did of his own recourse, and through his own proclivities, in the name of his god(s) or materialistic/socialistic worldview, I “found that God's love is indeed real and eternal, and have devoted” my “to God”.

I would like to start by saying that if finding Christ and God's love made you a better and happier person, I am happy for you. I realize that belief and unbelief are not for everyone, and it would be irresponsible of me to enforce my unbelief on a person who could be happier with God.I also meant that theists and atheists alike did have epiphanies in those moments in their lives, and of those I heard, all were happy with the change. I do know that doesn't mean it's typical of everyone, as the unhappy ones wouldn't have posted in the websites I visited, but it is not a rare occurrence.

Actually, the “evidence” from the empirical scientific method points to BOTH “how” and “Why”; maybe mostly how, at this point, but “why” as well. But it also doesn’t always point to a whole lot of either one (yet)!

For example: We know “How” and “Why” humans procreate. It is no longer a great mystery. There is much yet to learn, but we have a good grasp on the basics of the “how” and “why”. We also know “how” and “Why” we can have a much lower mortality rate; “MUCH” lower than the 18 and 1900’s.That's what I get for posting absolutes I was mostly thinking of the great philosophical questions when I was writing this, such as why is there something instead of nothing, the meaning of life, etc. I do agree, of course you are right, science does explain some why's, but not all.

Further, the “maybe” you attempt to assert (or force upon) the origins of all of this (the universe, life, intelligence) in a non sequitur, as ALL the logical, rational, and scientific evidence points DIRECTLY to an “Initial Causer”; this alone causes great concern for the materialistic atheist, because it renders his would-view/philosophical life’s-view as foundationless and faith filled. Also, you have absolutely NO “dispute how that creator went about his business of creating” because neither YOU nor I can even come close to fathoming HOW He did it.

I would dispute that all evidence leads to the initial causer/creater/designer/god, because if the evidence did unequivocally point in that direction, then why does the rest of the world not agree? Any creation story is a minority when compared to the creation stories of all the religions in the world. What's more, there are many troubling similarities between the creation stories of many mythologies and religions, casting doubt upon the veracity of any single one of them. Why also then does science, which is the study of the universe around us, based upon empirical evidence, come up with a radically different answer from young earth creationism?

That would not only be incorrect, but a mischaracterization as well. An atheist is someone who “believes” (or is of the philosophical bent) that there is no God (or gods etc…). A liberal, on the other hand can be an atheist, a theist, an agnostic (etc…). You can also be a liberal or conservative New York Giants fan (or even a liberal or conservative New York Giant for that matter).

Therefore, for you to make such a claim is a bit disingenuous to say the least.

Unfortunately for your descriptive sensibilities, “Atheist” is literally translated as “No God”. So I’ll give you this warning now: Equivocations are not allowed at this forum. We are all about open and honest discourse, not “conversion by definition” as a point of argumentation. So, if you want to continue along that trail, you will be doing it elsewhere.

I think we have a disagreement on the exact definition of atheism here. Before continuing to argue, I think we should agree on a definition. I do not want us to argue by equivocation, I do not want us to argue from different definitions, and I do not want to argue from a definition that I do not know is flawed. Can we agree on a definition, so that our discussion may continue? Below I submit my definition, and you can tell me if it is flawed or if you accept it (if only for the sake of this conversation).First off, I am an atheist, however my life is not build around the central facet that there is no god, nor is it my firm belief that no gods exist nor can they possibly exist at all. By your definition, I am not an atheist.I have made some research into the meaning of the term atheist, and though I have come to find many different (and oft-times confusing) answers, I have found an explanation that so far seems to work. It puts atheism and theism on opposite sides of the spectrum, but also includes gnosticism. Theism is the position a person takes on belief, to believe or not. Gnosticism is a position one takes based on knowledge, to know or not. From that, we can find 4 different categories, the gnostic theist, the agnostic theist, the agnostic atheist, and the gnostic theist. The gnostic theist would be someone who knows that her/his god exists, and furthermore probably knows her/his name and her/his personality. Most of the theists would fall in this category. The agnostic theist is a person who believes there is a or many gods, but that either we do not know them, or that we cannot know them. Such people as deists would fall in this category, as well as people who are uncertain as to what kind of faith exactly they have (e.g.; hesitant between protestant, catholic or orthodox). An agnostic theist can also vary into the agnostic atheist, being a person who does not know if or is unsure whether a or any deities exist. However, agnostic atheists would also include people such as myself, who do not believe, but who do not claim to know that there are no gods. Finally, there would be the gnostic atheists, who would argue that there are no gods, gods cannot exist, etc. There is also a separate class of people, the anti-theist, who go a step further in their atheism. Not only are they gnostic atheists in their disbelief, they also claim that all religions are harmful and should be wiped from the face of the earth.

Notice also that an atheist can be liberal or conservative and a fan of the NY giants or not. What is important with a person's belief is that they are internally consistent. A person cannot be a conservative and a liberal, he is either one, the other, or a mix and match from both (I believe in the US that is defined as independent, yes?) but a person cannot take all the positions of liberals and conservatives. So no, I do not think my example was disingenuous. Please do tell me if I made a mistake in my reasoning and where.

Again, we’re talking about the actions of man, not Christianity. If you could show me, in the New Testament, where Jesus (the foundation of the Christian faith) condoned such, then you might have an argument. Otherwise, you are simply attempting to perpetrate a fraud by superimposing the actions of man over that of God.

Where I mean to take that argument is that if any particular kind of religion were the one true religion, whose god is the one true source of morality for all mankind, then we should see a specific and distinct increase in morality and good actions for the adherents to that specific religion. That however is not the case, we find a uniform and consistent spread of good and bad people throughout all the religions of the world. I'm not trying to say God is doing evil acts (because, according to me, God cannot intervene in our world, unless it is in some way impossible to detect by our instruments or if he is purposefully hiding his actions from us).

Which is exactly my point, and why your argument fails on that point. Atheists like Stalin and Pol Pot were fanatical in their atheistic fundamentalism via communism in order to kill all those that they were responsible for.

My point was that you are associating their atheism with their communism, when there is no direct reason to. Atheism permits communism just as well as religion permits theocracy, and yet I am not claiming that the divine nature emperors claimed for themselves is a direct cause of their religion. All these leaders had their belief or lack thereof, and took a deliberate step further in order to form a political system that would grant them power. Stalin's USSR might have been atheist, but he replaced religion with a different kind of belief system, one that revered communism and its leaders. That is not atheism, that is something more than atheism, and for you to mention both as tough they were somehow intrinsically linked is not a logical step.

It’s always good to grow. If one is willing to do so, that is…

I am always willing to grow, I just need to be shown appropriate reason to

No, you seem not to understand that atheism IS a position FOR there being NO God. Namely, the atheistic belief that there are NO deities and all that is associated with it. Your initial argumentation began with Bradlaugh as an attempt to water down the definition of atheism; to make it more of an “agnostic” world-view. Which, again, is nothing more than conversion by definition.

I am going to go on a limb here and assume you agree with the definition I gave above. What you are describing would be the gnostic atheist position, and I agree, that is not a logically supported position. One cannot assume that deities of all kinds do not exist, because one cannot prove that something does not exist. One can provide examples to show that the existence of such an object is so terribly unlikely that it is not worth believing it does, but one cannot conclusively prove that something, be it deities or a teapot orbiting Saturn, does not exist. I disagree with your definition of atheism, but I agree with your argument against the 'gods do not exist' position. Furthermore, it is my personal belief that one cannot build a life around a negative. No matter if gods do or do not exist, I have not had sufficient evidence to convince me that they do, and thus I live my life as though they don't. I don't pray, I don't go to church, I don't do confessions. I do help others, I do good actions, and I try to make everyone I meet happy, even if it's something as small and as unimportant as holding the door for an old lady or smiling at someone. I lead a happy life and I am good without gods. I do try to make the lives of others happy, and I do realize that being good without god is not for everyone. Is that satisfactory?

Once again, you are attempting to hide from the fact that your so-called lack of a belief in God is a “belief” that there is NO God. And you may attempt to argue against simply provides the strength of your faith.

Yes, that would be the gnostic atheist position, which derives knowledge from the assumption that gods do not exist. True, it is indeed like that for others, although I do wish they would realize that theirs is not logically supported, and that they would lose their arrogance and be more humble/respectful as individuals. I am not like that however, and I need to find values I can derive from elsewhere, because my atheism provides me none. I am a humanist, although I do not objectively place humanity above all the other species in this world. I have a subjective morality, and I take my morals from a miss-mash of different sources, ranging from tales for children to my own experiences to a few treatises on morality and philosophy. I am liberal in most points, though I agree that economically sometimes a conservative position is better. I am more of a socialist in that pure capitalism is not good enough being too laissez-faire and communism is too strict. I do believe the government should out laws and regulations in place to limit the capitalist system, because investors are more tempted to go for what gives them personal gain at the expense of the system (think of the recent economic crisis). I am pro-choice, because a woman should have control over what she wants to do with her body. None of these values are derived from my atheism. All of these values are independent of my atheism, but they are all internally consistent with it.Do you have any more questions?

That's a shame you believe this. There's really nothing for me to discuss with you further. I don't believe in "luck" per se, but I wish you the best of luck and hope you find what need to find, if indeed you are seeking.

That is my personal belief, but it is in no means meant as an attack on other people's beliefs. I am merely stating something that is on the same level on what my favorite ice cream flavor. Just because we do not have the same opinion does not mean in any way I wish to insult you or denigrate your beliefs. If you do feel like it, I would like to continue this conversation, because I always want to hear opinions of other people, and especially opinions contrary to mine. Hearing only opinions which agree and confirm your beliefs does not stimulate thought, I find. That is part of the reason why I am here, to hear, understand and think about different opinions and beliefs. Objectively, I see that sins do have many positive outcomes, such as the 10 commandments of 'do not kill', 'do not steal', 'do not commit adultery', etc. I agree that there are many positive outcomes to the teachings of sin both to help people live among each other in peace by creating rules to follow. I also see that other forms of sin do help the Church maintain their authority, such as the three first commandments, such as 'thou shalt have no other gods before me', 'thou shall not make graven images', and 'thou shall not take my name in vain'. In essence, to me it means, do not go to other religions, do not idolize false images, and respect me. I however disagree with the doctrines of eternal punishment in the flames of hell, and with many sins which openly cause anguish or pain unto people, such as the obsession surrounding masturbation and s@x in some religious circles. I have made friends with an ex-mormon, and she has ben mentally tortured through fear of punishment for her sins of impure thoughts. She would beat herself over the simplest thoughts, such as looking at a cute person and mistaking it for adultery. She would feel terribly ashamed of herself simply for being who she was. I disagree with sins taken to that extreme.How exactly do you view sins?

Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.

Age: 51

Christian

Young Earth Creationist

Southern USA

Posted 18 March 2012 - 08:06 AM

That is my personal belief, but it is in no means meant as an attack on other people's beliefs. I am merely stating something that is on the same level on what my favorite ice cream flavor. Just because we do not have the same opinion does not mean in any way I wish to insult you or denigrate your beliefs. If you do feel like it, I would like to continue this conversation, because I always want to hear opinions of other people, and especially opinions contrary to mine. Hearing only opinions which agree and confirm your beliefs does not stimulate thought, I find. That is part of the reason why I am here, to hear, understand and think about different opinions and beliefs.

Objectively, I see that sins do have many positive outcomes, such as the 10 commandments of 'do not kill', 'do not steal', 'do not commit adultery', etc. I agree that there are many positive outcomes to the teachings of sin both to help people live among each other in peace by creating rules to follow. I also see that other forms of sin do help the Church maintain their authority, such as the three first commandments, such as 'thou shalt have no other gods before me', 'thou shall not make graven images', and 'thou shall not take my name in vain'. In essence, to me it means, do not go to other religions, do not idolize false images, and respect me. I however disagree with the doctrines of eternal punishment in the flames of hell, and with many sins which openly cause anguish or pain unto people, such as the obsession surrounding masturbation and s@x in some religious circles. I have made friends with an ex-mormon, and she has ben mentally tortured through fear of punishment for her sins of impure thoughts. She would beat herself over the simplest thoughts, such as looking at a cute person and mistaking it for adultery. She would feel terribly ashamed of herself simply for being who she was. I disagree with sins taken to that extreme.How exactly do you view sins?

You stated unequivocally "I do believe that sin is an imaginary disease". That in no way is an "attack on other people's beliefs" so I'm in no way offended. It's good you're here "to hear, understand and think about different opinions and beliefs" but in areas where you've got your mind made up, in my opinion, I would be wasting your time discussing those matters with you. Anything I explained to you would only be "imaginary" on my part, according to your perspective, so anything I say to you won't be taken seriously. That's just cutting to the chase.

Quite bluntly, I believe you're in a state of a hardened heart (one that will not change). I'm not judging you, only God can do that (as it applies to the damned), and you may in fact come to know Christ in the future. I'm just saying that in my opinion this is what I see. Therefore there really is no use explaining anything more to you on this basis as well as the other. But again, best of luck to you.

You stated unequivocally "I do believe that sin is an imaginary disease". That in no way is an "attack on other people's beliefs" so I'm in no way offended. It's good you're here "to hear, understand and think about different opinions and beliefs" but in areas where you've got your mind made up, in my opinion, I would be wasting your time discussing those matters with you. Anything I explained to you would only be "imaginary" on my part, according to your perspective, so anything I say to you won't be taken seriously. That's just cutting to the chase.

Quite bluntly, I believe you're in a state of a hardened heart (one that will not change). I'm not judging you, only God can do that (as it applies to the damned), and you may in fact come to know Christ in the future. I'm just saying that in my opinion this is what I see. Therefore there really is no use explaining anything more to you on this basis as well as the other. But again, best of luck to you.

Thank you for not being offended, honestly To me, sin is not a real measure of bad behaviour, but I do know that it is very real for you, and for the sake of the discussion I can adopt your viewpoint and your definitions. In short I can discuss as though sin were real, in order for me to have a good discussion with you and to try to understand your position better. I will take what you say seriously, because you are a real person wishing to have a serious discussion. I'm just saying that while I may step in your shoes to understand perfectly from your viewpoint what sin is and how important it is, does not mean I can necessarily agree, and I can step out of your shoes whenever I want to. However, I voluntarily step in your shoes in order to have a good discussion with you.

As for me being of hardened heart, I beg to differ, I only ask you get to know me a bit better The main values I try to go by is understanding and acceptance, because from those come empathy, love, and a host of other good emotions.You may be interested to hear I'm in a bible study, and we've just covered the topic of sin and Jesus' death today. I was not there to debate nor to make others lose faith, I was supportive because I was there to understand.

Thank you for not being offended, honestly To me, sin is not a real measure of bad behaviour, but I do know that it is very real for you, and for the sake of the discussion I can adopt your viewpoint and your definitions. In short I can discuss as though sin were real, in order for me to have a good discussion with you and to try to understand your position better. I will take what you say seriously, because you are a real person wishing to have a serious discussion. I'm just saying that while I may step in your shoes to understand perfectly from your viewpoint what sin is and how important it is, does not mean I can necessarily agree, and I can step out of your shoes whenever I want to. However, I voluntarily step in your shoes in order to have a good discussion with you.

As for me being of hardened heart, I beg to differ, I only ask you get to know me a bit better The main values I try to go by is understanding and acceptance, because from those come empathy, love, and a host of other good emotions.You may be interested to hear I'm in a bible study, and we've just covered the topic of sin and Jesus' death today. I was not there to debate nor to make others lose faith, I was supportive because I was there to understand.

Your understanding of sin comes from your philosophy. You do not accept the authority of God. Sin is a transgression of God's laws, therefore it comes as no surprise to the Christians here that you don't have the same understanding of sin.

Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.

Age: 51

Christian

Young Earth Creationist

Southern USA

Posted 21 March 2012 - 08:22 AM

As for me being of hardened heart, I beg to differ, I only ask you get to know me a bit better

This is not "written in stone" and I have no way of knowing for sure. I should have included "may" and for that I apologize. I should have stated "I believe you may be in a state of a hardened heart". I still believe this. However, you state that

You may be interested to hear I'm in a bible study, and we've just covered the topic of sin and Jesus' death today. I was not there to debate nor to make others lose faith, I was supportive because I was there to understand.

If in fact this is the truth, this is good obviously. But there is nothing I can say to change your mind about sin, right now, and that I'm sure about. Your brain is wired a certain way, your soul (right now) does not belong to God. I get no indication from you that you are experiencing a spiritual battle from within. You seem all too comfortable to rest in your opinion about sin, be curious as to what the "other side" says, yet your posts scream out "I'm comfortable, curious, and polite, but I won't change." If your posts screamed out "I'm miserable, confused, and I'm really seeking answers" then I'd dialogue with you about this. See the difference? This is why I suspect you are merely trying to engage here for the sake of grandstanding, not as a sincere seeker who feels they are lost.

I will offer you the best advice anyone can offer you however. If you are truly seeking God, if you are truly interested in knowing for sure that God exists (because even as an atheist you cannot be a "pure atheist" and say for certain that God does not exist) then that burden is up to YOU. You need to take personal responsibility for your soul. No one, no one can argue someone into the Kingdom of Heaven. And if knowing God and entering the Kingdom of Heaven is NOT your goal here, then having some intellectual with a believer about "sin" is pointless anyway. So here is the best advice:

Pray. With a sincere and humble heart, and with all of your might, open yourself up to God and ask God to reveal Himself to you. And continue to pray. This is how to approach God in prayer. I believe God honors this request to unbelievers that are contrite.

Bottom line: let's just cut to the chase. You stated you're in a Bible study. You're either seeking or you're not. If you are, then the FIRST step is to do the above. There is nothing more important considering your spiritual state. And THEN your requests to Christians will be substantive. If you choose not to follow this path, then you are not sincerely seeking and wasting your time and others.

Ah. I understand your position better now Remnant of the Abyss. I was looking for a discussion, you were looking for an occasion to lead me to God. Nothing wrong with that I take it if I am not seeking God then such a discussion would be pointless. I understand and respect that.
I merely wanted to discuss ideas and see what are the differences in our thinking processes, to meet new ideas. I guess I shall have to ask others then.

Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.

Age: 51

Christian

Young Earth Creationist

Southern USA

Posted 22 March 2012 - 02:51 PM

I was looking for a discussion, you were looking for an occasion to lead me to God.

But of course. It's why I think "Atheists are obsessed with God". Because deep down, ALL people are seeking, whether they admit it or even realize it. Here's a signature I like to use on another forum:

Isn't it funny how a person who believes in God does NOT argue with himself,questioning God's existence, but those who don't believe, do? This is very telling.As the Bible teaches, the search for God is ingrained in every man's heart, placed there by God.

Granted you did not "argue" but your curiosity in the things of God still validates the bottom line.

I admire the way you've conducted yourself here. I'll be more than happy to converse with you on other things if/when the opportunity arises. For now, I'm just sticking to my previous word regarding the discussion of this topic.

I was looking for a discussion, you were looking for an occasion to lead me to God.

But of course. It's why I think "Atheists are obsessed with God". Because deep down, ALL people are seeking, whether they admit it or even realize it. Here's a signature I like to use on another forum:

Isn't it funny how a person who believes in God does NOT argue with himself,questioning God's existence, but those who don't believe, do? This is very telling.As the Bible teaches, the search for God is ingrained in every man's heart, placed there by God.

Granted you did not "argue" but your curiosity in the things of God still validates the bottom line.

I admire the way you've conducted yourself here. I'll be more than happy to converse with you on other things if/when the opportunity arises. For now, I'm just sticking to my previous word regarding the discussion of this topic.

It must be understood, as well, that there are a great many atheists who come to this forum (and other Christian forums) to "lead us" away from God. It happens on a regular basis. Further, as Christians, we are commissioned to "Go unto all the world and spread the Gospel". Which begs the question: What does the atheist expect when they come to a Christian forum?

Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.

Age: 51

Christian

Young Earth Creationist

Southern USA

Posted 22 March 2012 - 04:53 PM

It must be understood, as well, that there are a great many atheists who come to this forum (and other Christian forums) to "lead us" away from God. It happens on a regular basis. Further, as Christians, we are commissioned to "Go unto all the world and spread the Gospel". Which begs the question: What does the atheist expect when they come to a Christian forum?

Oh, I understand this, believe me! And let me tell you, this forum is a breath of fresh air from what I'm used to! On IMDb that's ALL the atheists are there for, but not necessarily to "lead Christians away from God" (which we know can't happen to a Christian with a solid foundation) but they are there to counter any arguments the Christians makes in favor of God. ANY argument. Why? For the following:

- they want to steer any onlookers (those just browsing the forum and are not committed one way or the other) away from God- they enjoy debating us, and they believe we are "easy targets" because they think we are "morons" for believing what we do- they enjoy annoying Christians, just for the fun of it- they truly enjoy mocking God and Christianity- they fear us because of our political influences and they are fighting us any way they know how- the not so smart ones may actually think they can steer Christians away from God and it becomes sport to them

Pick one or all of the above to answer the question you posed.

I've found that approximately 1% of the internet atheists I've encountered have been sincere, sincerely seeking truth/sincerely seeking God. In a way, that's a good thing that it's a miniscule number. It's another data point that leads me to believe that the battle lines have been drawn, and the fullness of the Gospel is soon approaching. Then Christ will return. I eagerly anticipate that day, and I hope and pray that I will live to be raptured.

It also should be painfully obvious and on the forefront of our minds that when atheists are on a Christian board, the vast majority, if not all, are there with an agenda and not for personal salvation. This is why every Christian should be fully aware of exactly WHAT it is to "seed", and "seed" only. My philosophy meshes well with Fred's on this topic as outlined in his "Warning":

While considering these advantages, be alert that you do not at the same time fall into the trap outlined in disadvantages 2 & 3 – especially unproductive use of time.

But of course. It's why I think "Atheists are obsessed with God". Because deep down, ALL people are seeking, whether they admit it or even realize it. Here's a signature I like to use on another forum:

Isn't it funny how a person who believes in God does NOT argue with himself,questioning God's existence, but those who don't believe, do? This is very telling.As the Bible teaches, the search for God is ingrained in every man's heart, placed there by God.

Granted you did not "argue" but your curiosity in the things of God still validates the bottom line.

I admire the way you've conducted yourself here. I'll be more than happy to converse with you on other things if/when the opportunity arises. For now, I'm just sticking to my previous word regarding the discussion of this topic.

Thank you for the compliment I disagree with what you posted above that line, but I'm not too sure on how to proceed from here, so I guess we'll just agree to disagree. Take care!

And the quote remains in my post, #21, as well. And I'm not going to edit it out from my post since I took the time to reply.

Indeed, and now post# 21 is back, as it is an example of rules infractions; and an example of what not to do as a member, when warned about "equivocating" and "arguing about board moderating. And is part of the reason he got bounced from the forum.

Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.

Age: 51

Christian

Young Earth Creationist

Southern USA

Posted 26 March 2012 - 09:02 AM

Indeed, and now post# 21 is back, as it is an example of rules infractions; and an example of what not to do as a member, when warned about "equivocating" and "arguing about board moderating. And is part of the reason he got bounced from the forum.

I had a feeling that would happen. He was "nice" yet agreed to NOTHING Christians had to offer. I've seen the type before. Their real goals are the things I stated in post #34. This one just put a nice dress on it, but it was still a

Indeed, and now post# 21 is back, as it is an example of rules infractions; and an example of what not to do as a member, when warned about "equivocating" and "arguing about board moderating. And is part of the reason he got bounced from the forum.

I had a feeling that would happen. He was "nice" yet agreed to NOTHING Christians had to offer. I've seen the type before. Their real goals are the things I stated in post #34. This one just put a nice dress on it, but it was still a

It doesn't phase me of someone agrees with me or not, all I ask for is:

1- Be responsible for what you claim, and provide evidence if you're claiming it as a fact, and not just something you believe.2- Make a cogent response, that is well thought out and logical.

It's strange, I as one athiest (so can only speak for myself) find myself not obsessed with god, I can't be obsessed with something I don't believe in, but I do find myself obsessed with why people believe in god and the implications this belief has on their lives. Is belief a good thing? In all honesty yes, I think the majority of people seem to get on quite well with their beliefs, it's just the few that ruin it, but that's the same in every culture.

It is an amazing subject and I think that's why people like talking about it, it's the big question and it harbours every single important question, our origins, that as a species and a universe, how do we live our lives now we have them.

My big problem is when people misrepresent science or try to censor science due to their beliefs. This is because I love science (although my love of science came long after my athieism) and I hate to see it misused because I feel people may miss out on how truly beautiful it is. What could be more amazing than to know that our Earth is 4.6 Billion years old, that the Universe is 13.72 Billion years old. That we as a human species along with all the other species on this planet come from a long line of survivors, no one on this planet had an ancestor that did not survive long enough to reproduce.

So in short, yes, I am a bit obsessed with why people believe in a god and I do like talking about it, I never mean any disrespect when I talk with people although I do sometimes come across as short, but that's just disbelief in what the other person has said.